82,891
edits
Non-fungible token: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
A unique reference to an external thing — for example, a Banksy artwork — that has been cryptographically encoded on a [[blockchain]]. The “[[NFT]]” does ''not'', in itself, confer ownership on thing it represents, but — and unlike any of the millions of other copies and images of the work online — it is a ''unique'' token of your non-actual ownership — there is no other token of non-ownership quite like it (hence, “non-[[fungible]]”) and given its unique status on the [[bollockchain]], no theoretical possibility another one that could be created. So this token somehow magically bootstraps itself to intrinsic value. | A unique reference to an external thing — for example, a Banksy artwork — that has been cryptographically encoded on a [[blockchain]]. The “[[NFT]]” does ''not'', in itself, confer ownership on thing it represents, but — and unlike any of the millions of other copies and images of the work online — it is a ''unique'' token of your non-actual ownership — there is no other token of non-ownership quite like it (hence, “non-[[fungible]]”) and given its unique status on the [[bollockchain]], no theoretical possibility another one that could be created. So this token somehow magically bootstraps itself to intrinsic value. | ||
Hence some people — clearly possessed of a devastating sense of irony — hatched the idea of taking an already subversively self-referential artwork — one that plays with the idea of its own lack of intrinsic value, being a ''print'' — print 325 of 500 created! — | Hence some people — clearly possessed of a devastating sense of irony — hatched the idea of taking an already subversively self-referential artwork — one that plays with the idea of its own lack of intrinsic value, being a ''print'' — print 325 of 500 created! — of a ''graffito'' which is called “[[Morons]]”, and which directly addresses the gullibility of art buyers, and which actually has the words “I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU MORONS ACTUALLY BUY THIS SHIT” written in capital letters on it — and putting a (er, non-representational) representation of it on a [[blockchain]] and selling ''that''. | ||
Still, the token sellers perceived rather bricks-and-mortar-ish, old-economy sort of perceptual problem: what if potential buyers worried that the physical work might seem somehow more intrinsically valuable than its crypto-tokenized equivalent? Their solution: ''destroy'' the original work: | Still, the token sellers perceived rather bricks-and-mortar-ish, old-economy sort of perceptual problem: what if potential buyers worried that the physical work might seem somehow more intrinsically valuable than its crypto-tokenized equivalent? Their solution: ''destroy'' the original work: | ||